# Why cannot both Design and Descent be taught in science classes

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-cannot-both-design-and-descent-be-taught-in-science-classes/15198>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Education, Society\
**Created:** [June 27, 2022, 2:22am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-cannot-both-design-and-descent-be-taught-in-science-classes/15198 "2022-06-27T02:22:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 68

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [July 3, 2022, 10:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-cannot-both-design-and-descent-be-taught-in-science-classes/15198/68 "2022-07-03T22:58:09Z")

</div>

> [@Paul\_King](#):
>
> I don’t think anyone mentioned any “ESP psychic power”. Moreover the only way to determine if consciousness observer played “a fundamental role in causing the collapse” is to demonstrate that the absence of a conscious observer makes a difference. Perhaps you can point to an experiment that does so. This one certainly does not.

No, it actually does because quantum erasure experiments are different than double-slit experiments:

‘Here it is most interesting to note, as do the authors in the published version of the paper, that the “choice” of which direction the photon will take at BSA or BSB is made by QM itself. That is, the path at this juncture is 50-50 random. As we will see, this “choice” will determine the information available at the conclusion of the experiment. ( **The authors note that in other quantum eraser experiments, the choice is made by the experimentalist**.’ [emphasis added]

Secondary source: [Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser (bottomlayer.com)](http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm)

Secondary source: [Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4)

Primary source: [Experimental Realization of Wheeler’s Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment (science.org)](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1136303)

Here is another but different experiment that further demonstrates that the observer plays a fundamental role NOT the detector the observer uses:

Primary source: [Microsoft Word - Dokument1 (oeaw.ac.at)](https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/IQOQI-Vienna/PDF/publications-zeilinger/1994_-_Fundamental_Problems_in_Quantum_Theory_-_Experimental_Realization_of_Interaction-Free_Measurement.pdf)

I highly recommend you just watch this short video for lay people about this experiment to get a clear and concise understanding of all the sources above:

Secondary source: [Quantum Experiment without Interaction - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY)

> [@Tim](#):
>
> > **ENOUGH!**
> > 
> > I am sick and tired of you _constantly_ casting aspersions about others’ “understanding of the quantum physics”, when you have demonstrated **absolutely no** understanding of your own.
> > 
> > I therefore have three questions for you:
> > 
> > 1. What is your formal background in physics?
> > 2. What is your formal background in calculus?
> > 3. What books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by _actual quantum physicists_ have you read? (As opposed to Youtube videos by apologists.)
> 
> This appears to be as true now as it was then, and his continued failure to assimilate this point is further demonstration that **@meerkat_SK5 appears unable to learn** , which is why I have given up interacting with them, why I agree that this thread should be closed, and would wonder if any further follow-up threads on this topic serve any real purpose.

Likewise, this is what I said to you and others about that:

"I need everyone to please read all the articles below so everyone can accept the premise that digital information transcends classical space-time. Some articles are studies and others are reviews that are not peer-reviewed but are still informative and helpful for laypeople.

**So there is no excuse going forward for anyone who complains about not knowing enough on quantum physics to refute the first premise in my argument. You don’t need to be an expert to understand the articles I provided. Therefore, if you make an objection that contradicts the facts in quantum physics, I am not going to accept it as valid.**"

"Well, you clearly did not read the post where I specifically said… If I did not address or accept your previous objections, this may be because… **PS users are making objections without providing counter sources or articles that refute well-established aspects of my theory.** Or they are making personal objections that are not aligned with their level of expertise.

It has to be one of these two conditions."

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
> >
> > It’s so funny you point this out because I actually have done this many times already
> 
> Now I’m curious. Where have you sent your manuscript? What was the response?

I will potentially tell you more about this in the next topic I just created following this one after your guys responses:

[Consensus should determine what’s taught in science classes. Why? - Peaceful Science](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/consensus-should-determine-whats-taught-in-science-classes-why/15208)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-cannot-both-design-and-descent-be-taught-in-science-classes/15198)._